Liability for damages inside the hotel room
My personal liability for the loan that was made by my friend from the bank is that I am responsible to pay the borrowed loan as I was bounded by the Partnership. As stated in the case of United States Trading Co Pte Ltd v Ting Boon Aun (2008), where one partner fraudulently borrowed a loan under the partnership’s name and disappeared with it. The other partner was held liable as he could not establish that it was not on the course of the partnership business to obtain loans. (Chandran, 2010)
Advantages of Partnership
Partners can share properties, their profits and loss.
Whatever amount of money the partnership has earned, the partners will share the money and properties formed within the partnership.
Partnerships are easy to establish and is also inexpensive.
Unlike companies, partnership is less costly. It doesn’t require any formalities except for most professional partnerships that need complex contracts.
Partnerships can loan money from the bank easily.
When at least two people is involved, partnership can borrow money from a bank to set up or make their business grow.
A partnership is flexible. Dissolution is usually simple.
Flexible by means that there are no specific rules in forming a partnership. It can be 2 or more people involved. When one of the partners dies or injured they can withdraw from the partnership easily.
Partnerships do not pay tax. The partners themselves are liable.
Compared to a private limited company, partnerships don’t need to pay tax as they will be personally liable with their own business. But unlike the partnerships, private limited companies applies protective scheme which will cover them up such as the persons involved in the company will not be liable if debts incurred, but the company itself. (Gamble et al, 2006)
Disadvantages of Partnership
The duration of partnership is always uncertain.
If any of the partner dies, go bankrupt, injured or withdraws, the partnership may come to an end.
Partnership has unlimited liability.
There are possibilities that they could lose all their possessions if the business goes bankrupt.
Partners may have different points of view and goals for the business.
Personal arguments may occur, as one or other partners will not agree to your perceptions or goals. This may lead to dissolution.
Each partner is liable for the actions done, debts acquired and decisions made by other partner or partners.
If your partner borrowed money from a bank, you will be held personally liable for what your partners have done.
Partnership may face difficulty in attracting investors.
Partnerships that just set up partnerships for their own benefits but do not have enough knowledge about the market and clientele will not be successful.
(All Business, 2010)
Private Limited Companies vs. Partnership
Procedures in setting up a Private Limited Company:
Prepare the two important documents that have to be submitted. The first document is the Memorandum of Association. It has to state the name of the company, whether the company is limited or unlimited (by shares or guarantee), and the names of the shareholders.
The second document that has needed to be submitted is the Articles of Association. This document states the appointment of management and the methods in carrying out meetings and issuing of shares.
Once all the documents were approved, the Registrar of Companies will then issue a certificate of registration.
The company can start loaning money from banks to start their business.
If the partnership was turned into a private limited company, the shareholders (in this case the partners) will not be personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the company or if the company is being sued, unless the shareholders failed to do their duties and responsibilities reasonably. (Chandran, 2006)
The hotel will not be liable for the damages or properties lost inside the hotel room. As from the moment guest checks-in, there is a prominent sign at the reception counter stating that “guests are personally responsible for their personal effects and that the hotel will not be responsible for any loss or damages caused", which we all know will be visible to all the guests coming in the hotel. When a guest checks-in in the hotel, it means they agree with the clause stated at the counter. There is a form of offer (when they read the clause at the reception counter) and acceptance (guest checks-in and agree with the clause stated) in that case. Thus, in the case of Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949), the couple had check-in the hotel and paid in advance for a 1 week stay, only to discover that there’s an exemption clause from the hotel that exempts them from liability of loss, theft or damages, but the sign was placed outside the bedroom of the couple. The court had held that the couple was not incorporated by the contract, as the notice given was already too late. Whereas, in the case of the chambermaid who accidentally broken a camera and the guest compensating for the damage caused, the hotel will not be able to compensate the guest, as the hotel has no fault for what had happened. The guest is already bounded by the contract made when he had checked-in and when he had agree to the clause located at the reception area and that the hotel had made enough responsibility to let the guests know about the exemption clause written. Leaving their personal belongings and important things inside the room is a risk. They, themselves must know what will be the possible consequences once they leave their valuable belongings inside the room.
But still, in order to satisfy the guest, the hotel should make a service recovery. In other point of view, the hotel also, has its own mistake as to which the chambermaid broke the camera. Here are some tips in order to make a guest satisfied despite of the incident happened:
Offer them to have a 20% discount for their overall stay in the hotel.
Offer them a VIP membership for free.
Offer them a one day complimentary Breakfast.
But on the other hand, as stated in the Innkeepers Act 1985, the hotel also is liable for the damages caused by the chambermaid when she had dropped the expensive camera. When we see in other point of view, the hotel employee has also made a mistake. The hotel can compensate the insisting guest only the maximum amount of $500 in order to make the guest pleased and satisfied.
In this kind of situation, you are not supposed to touch or even have the intention of touching Mr. Foshe, as you don’t have any right to do so. If you insist on taking him out of the bar, there is a possibility that it will lead to trespassing to a person or battery. According to the case of Wilson v Pringle (1986), a school boy (Wilson) was injured, because of the defendant pulling his bag. Although it’s only horseplay, and the injury was not intentional, the offence made is the mere trespass itself. What you can do is have somebody to assist him like his friends or family staying in the hotel as they are the only ones who can handle him. Do not touch him without his permission or else there will be a trespass that will happen. Call the family or friends and inform them that Mr. Foshe refuses to leave the bar and that you’re bothered that he might create trouble as he seems intoxicated already. If there were no family or friends, call the security as they are the ones responsible in physically removing Mr. Foshe and to solve every trouble in any hotel premises.
(a) In the situation of Mr. Bright, he wants to sue the hotel for breach of contract. He has insisted that he called up the Hotel Sherry Ton to reserve a room for him. But in this scenario, the Mr. Bright cannot sue the hotel for breach of contract. First of all, Mr. Bright should consider whether he has successfully made a contract between him and the hotel. What he made actually was just an enquiry. There are four elements to consider in the validation of a contract. First, there should be an offer, secondly was there any acceptance made by the hotel. Yes, we all know that in his situation he wanted to reserve a room, but what he did was just a simple call or an enquiry. He didn’t make any reservations at all. Third aspect is the consideration. There must be a promise made. But in the situation, the hotel didn’t make any promise to Mr. Bright. The front office staff just informed him that there were still rooms available, but never made a promise that one of those rooms would be for Mr. Bright. And lastly, was there an intention to create legal relations. This step is closely related to consideration. When you made a promise it must be legally bounded. Mr. Bright has failed to accomplish all these aspects as to the result of him being unsuccessful if he tries to bring up the case.
Hotel Sherry Ton could “bump" the guest or walk away the guest to another hotel nearby. If it had caused too much inconvenience for him, we can try to provide him a free transportation to another hotel.
(b) Issue: Will Mr. Sherry succeeds in suing the hotel for the information provided in the Menu Card and in the website?
Law: Contract Law; Invitation to treat; Offer and Acceptance
Application: Advertisements are not always considered as an offer. It may be an invitation to treat, which means that if a shop advertises products, it is not an implication that the store wants to sell all those things to all people. It is just mere attraction for people to be interested in their goods. Just what the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist (1953) has stated: goods displayed are referred to as invitation to treat; an offer was made when the customer chooses or picks up what he wants and puts the product in the basket. The offer made by the customer may be rejected or accepted by the pharmacist who is at the cash desk at the same time. Binding of contract was made after the customer had purchased the product and wherein the owner agreed the products to be purchased.
The same thing goes with the case of Partridge v Crittenden (1968), Mr. Sherry wants to order sharks fin soup, but the waiter inform him politely, that he will check with the Chef if they have the Soup today and will return to confirm to him. The waiter didn’t agree or accept the offer directly by which Mr. Sherry was done when he wants to place the order. The waiter returned and said it’s not available for today. Mr. Sherry wanted to sue the hotel restaurant, but he didn’t realize the offer and acceptance is necessary in the formation of the contract, where in his case, it didn’t happen. Hotels or restaurants who displays food items on menu and websites are not legally bounded by what their information provide unless customer makes an offer and after the hotel or restaurant accepts the offer made.
Conclusion: Mr. Sherry would not be successful in suing the hotel as the food information placed on websites and menu card are simply called advertisements. People may want or wouldn’t want to buy the item so it was then called an invitation to invite customer to make an Offer when they will purchase the products.
(a)Ken v Fish and Ships Sea Food Restaurant
Issue: Will Ken succeed in bringing up a case against Fish & Ships Sea Food Restaurant due to negligent act?
Law: Tort of Negligence; Duty of Care
Duty of Care: The first element a plaintiff must prove is that the defendants owe a duty of care and the second element is whether the defendants had breached the duty of care; thirdly, to prove that plaintiff has suffered damage or loss as a result of the breach of duty of care. (Phang, 2004) This can be related to the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) whereby the manufacturer of the ginger failed to provide a duty of care to Ms. Donoghue, who drank the beer and realized there are remains of decomposed snail which caused her to have biological injury. In this case Ken suffered not only damages, but physical injury caused by the pieces of glass in the soup. There are strong evidences that all these elements were breached and that the restaurant is liable for the medical compensation of Ken.
Proximity: Ken, being a regular customer in the restaurant has imposed a close relationship between the restaurant and himself. The “neighbourhood principle" formulated by Lord Atkin states that ‘you must foresee what your acts or omissions will do to you neighbour. Your neighbours are the persons who are closely and straightly affected by your acts."
Foreseeability & remoteness of injury: It is definitely foreseeable that the negligence of the restaurant has caused Ken physical injuries and damages. Before they have served the soup, staffs should ensure that the soup is in a good condition, as they all know that Ken is a regular customer and they should give importance to him. Their carelessness will lead them to lose a valuable customer as they have failed to maintain the duty of care given to Ken.
Conclusion: Ken would be successful in suing the Fish & Ships Sea Food Restaurant due to act of negligence and getting medical compensation from the company.
(b) Based on the Ministry of Manpower and Employment Act, if the employee founds to be guilty of wrongful misconduct, the hotel can terminate his contract without any prior notice. Robert himself admitted that he had stolen the wallet of the guest. But before making a dismissal, the employer should conduct an inquiry first as to decide if the employee needs to be dismissed or just to make any forms of disciplinary actions.
Procedures taken to do inquiry:
- Terminate the employee’s service without any notice
- Instantly downgrade the employee (but no reducing of pay)
- Straightaway suspend him from work without payment salary not exceeding one week.
(c) As stated in the case of Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1877), there was an exclusion clause stated at the back of the ticket. The he plaintiff knows that there were conditions at ticket but admitted that he didn’t read them. In Mr. Flight’s case claiming a full amount because his baggage was lost is not possible. He knew that there were expensive stuffs inside his baggage, why did he dare to check in his baggage. He could have hand carried it. There is a possible risk that his laptop and expensive Italian Suit worth $2500 could be damaged or destroyed. He should have understood that the airline has been protected from the unlimited liability of the limitation clause that was in the ticket, and that Mr. Flight has been bounded by terms and agreement the moment he purchased the ticket and went on in the flight. In contrast with the case was Thornton v Shoe Lane parking (1971), the plaintiff was not bounded by the exclusion clause stated in the ticket as the notice had only been given after contract was made. If Mr. Flight still insists, the airline can only compensate him a maximum amount of $20 per kg.